DOJ Cracking Down On Profit-Driven Policing, Audit Looks At How Far It's Spread (muckrock.com)

v3rgEz writes: Federal civil rights officials at the Department of Justice are launching an effort to combat widespread constitutional abuses in U.S. courts in the hope of ending budget-driven policies that cripple those unable to afford fines and fees for minor offenses, the Huffington Post reports. The DOJ's focus on court fees and bail practices follows the Ferguson report which found officials had colluded to raise revenue when they hit residents with exorbitantly high fines and fees, regardless of their ability to pay, and jailed people to extract the money. The Sunlight Foundation and MuckRock recently launched an audit to see how widely the practice has spread.

Comments

Everywhere

[Aero77]

It's everywhere, you don't have to be a minority to get hit with excessive fines for minor (usually traffic) offenses.

Re:Everywhere

[Sowelu]

Well, define excessive. If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time. Risk has to be greater than reward for disobeying.

Re:Everywhere

[C0R1D4N]

Simpler solution. Eliminate fines for motor vehicle offenses. Use a points only system. Rack up x number of points, one month suspension, more, 6 months, then a year, then permanent. Let the points decay at a reasonable rate. Should affect all drivers equally regardless of wealth.

Re:Everywhere

[andymadigan]

And the punishment for driving on a suspended/revoked license is?

No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

How about ridiculously low B.A.C.'s which lead to DUI's or DWAI's and the non-stop barrage of fees and fines and general loss of rights for consuming a legal product. I'm in no way advocating drunk driving, but come on, in some parts of the country if you have 1 beer you're technically breaking the law, regardless as to whether or not you're actually impaired and shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle. May be the DOJ can look at the MADD cartel next.

Re:Everywhere

[peragrin]

Every county gets to make it's own laws. in NY that is generally how it is handled at the state level, however each county can add it's own fees to cover court and processing costs.

So you pay your fine and then another $30-$100 to cover the cost of court.

It is why gun laws are so poorly defined, and enforced. every county has it's own gun laws. not just state, but county.

Re:Everywhere

[Darinbob]

True, but $1000 for me is not much pain compared to $1000 for someone who needs to skip meals to save money. Or are you one of those getting jailed over fines until you can manage to raise the money from family and friends? The problem is not high fees for minor traffic offenses, but the shake down from police officers and engaging in debtors prisosn in order to raise money. But points for the attempt at empathy.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France.

Re:Everywhere

[Ol Olsoc]

Well, define excessive. If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time. Risk has to be greater than reward for disobeying.

Snipers?

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

So you get pulled over by the State Troopers instead of the locals? Not sure if that's an upgrade or downgrade.

Re:Everywhere

[MightyMartian]

Courts have the means to deal with repeat offenders. A small fine is usually enough for most people to go "I won't do that again". But if you are serial violater of HOV rules, then a judge is going to start nailing you harder and harder.

Re:Everywhere

[glitch!]

Simpler solution. Eliminate fines for motor vehicle offenses. Use a points only system.

I think you are almost there. I think that most motor vehicle offenses are various levels of reckless driving, ranging from a California stop to killing people. Why not treat all these as crimes? If there is a verdict of guilty, the driver will have to spend time in jail. Run a red light and endanger other drivers? That's one night in jail. Show up at 7PM and leave at 6AM. No exceptions, and no buying out. Get caught driving drunk? That's one week in jail. Work it out with your boss. Injure someone because of negligence? Even more. If there is no crime, I think there should be no punishment. But if there is a crime, I think there should be jail time with no way for rich people to weasel out with money.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this is usualy because legislation has been pushed through by some religiously motivated people who don't think you should be drinking at all.

Re:Everywhere

[nobuddy]

Use the solution that Denver chose- make the HOV lanes toll as well. No pass or toll booth. Cameras cover use of the lane. One person in car- bill mailed to the owner of the car. No fine, no patrols, no enforcement on the road. Just a toll for using the HOV lane.

Re:Everywhere

[AK Marc]

Nope. HOV infractions and speed cameras are often purely non-criminal. Like the citation is given to the car, not the driver. This is done because it's easier to collect and convict. But it also means that most are set up where you could get 1,000,000 of them, and so long as you paid the fine on time, there'd never be an escalation of penalty. Yes, you could change that, but it would be a fundamental change to the unattended ticket system, one that only barely holds on because so many people are against it, and they've never been shown to do what they say (it doesn't improve safety to send someone a ticket in the mail a month later).

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, define excessive. If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time. Risk has to be greater than reward for disobeying.

Simple solution, do what a lot of countries in Europe do, base the fine off a percentage of your yearly income. The rich asshole who uses his cell phone without a hands free device pays a $10,000 fine while the average Joe pays, say $1000 and the poor pays like $50. The fine should be large enough to hurt, but not enough to cause serious financial problems unless the person is a repeat offender too stupid to change their behavior.

Re:Everywhere

[Kohath]

If the tickets for improper HOV lane usage were lower, I'd probably be that asshole who uses it with no passengers all the time.

Would that be the end of the world? Is it worth all the bad things that come with higher fines and enforcement by armed officers to keep it from happening?

I don't think it is. At some point you just have to say "we aren't going to micromanage everyone's daily driving using fines backed by government bullying, ultimately backed by armed enforcement". Instead of pretending we can micromanage everyone, let's just build safe, efficient roads, safe cars, and concentrate the enforcement on drunk or reckless drivers.

Re:Everywhere

[MyAlternateID]

Every county gets to make it's own laws. in NY that is generally how it is handled at the state level, however each county can add it's own fees to cover court and processing costs.

So you pay your fine and then another $30-$100 to cover the cost of court.

It is why gun laws are so poorly defined, and enforced. every county has it's own gun laws. not just state, but county.

I never understood the concept of tacking a "court cost" onto the amount of a ticket. If not for things like the courts and criminal justice system, why are we paying taxes? If they want to move away from taxation and adopt usage fees instead, we can have that debate, but right now they seem to want to do both. It's effectively double-dipping.

Re:Everywhere

[Kohath]

If not for things like the courts and criminal justice system, why are we paying taxes?

To pay for pensions and giveaways to non-workers.

Re:Everywhere

[MyAlternateID]

I find this is usualy because legislation has been pushed through by some religiously motivated people who don't think you should be drinking at all.

... who tend to worship a God of love and forgiveness who turned water into wine and teaches them not to judge others ... which they learn about in a New Testament, most of which was written by an apostle who said that what goes into a person's mouth does not defile them, but rather, what comes out of their mouth.

Apparently they have no sense of irony. I do wish more religious people would read and understand their own holy book, at least if they are going to participate in local politics.

Re:Everywhere

[davester666]

Yeah, here in Alberta, Canada, the level is down to .05 and you can get your license suspended for 3 days and your vehicle impounded just if the cop feels like it, no evidence needed. And your insurance gets notified of it as well, so your rates go up.

Re: Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

If enforcement doesn't work, what makes you think the honor system will?

Re:Everywhere

[Tony Isaac]

You can't win by sending the money to the state. Greed always follows the money, whichever coffer it goes to.

Still, I agree you have to have the fines, because nothing gets people's attention like having to pay money.

Maybe we should consider the British system, which imposes fines based on a percentage of the offender's income.

Re:Everywhere

[Tony Isaac]

The British system imposes fines based on a percentage of the offender's income. Maybe this would even things out a bit, and be more of an incentive for those of us who are well off as well.

Re:Everywhere

[SirAudioMan]

Same in Ontario. I believe between 0.05 and 0.08 is the warn range. The biggest issue is indeed the insurance finding out. I have had a few speeding tickets since I have been driving (15 years). In each case I wasn't really bothered by the fine (up to $200) but the potential imprecation of my insurance going up. I figure withing 5-10 years, in my province anyway, I'll see the 0.05 range drop to very low levels which will mean ANY alcohol in your system will be illegal. That and the lowering of residential speed limits because pedestrians keep getting hit into Toronto who aren't paying attention, so naturally the entire province need to lower the speed limits because. Nothing better than a political knee-jerk reaction.

Re:Everywhere

[currently_awake]

You could impose public service. Run a red light, pick up garbage for 100 hours.

Re:Everywhere

[ToddDTaft]

No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.

North Carolina does this. The state constitution actually requires that all fines collected "shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining free public schools."

I've seen this work to have the desired effect.

The campus police at some of the state universities used to issue all sorts of nuisance parking tickets for things like "parked too close to line". At the time, the universities were keeping the money from the fines. Quite a few years ago, there was a legal case that went to the state supreme court where they ruled that the universities couldn't keep the money. After that, the number of nuisance fines dramatically decreased, even though officials claimed that there was no correlation between these events.

Re:Everywhere

[AK Marc]

They are crimes, they are just too expensive to prosecute, so they are fined, rather than prosecuted. Everywhere in the US, running a stop sign can land you in jail, not just a fine. But nobody does because the costs of prosecuting someone for criminal bad driving exceed the perceived benefits from doing so. The traffic courts are set up as a revenue stream, and if the prosecution isn't profitable, it won't be done, no matter what the effect on safety would be.

Re: Everywhere

[Kohath]

It's not about finding a way to micromanage everyone's driving that "works". Let people drive without being micromanaged. That "works" adequately versus the alternatives when you consider all the benefits and drawbacks to the public. Save enforcement for recklessness.

Re:Everywhere

[mvdwege]

Who is putting a gun to your head to have a beer?

Re:Everywhere

[Ihlosi]

Should affect all drivers equally regardless of wealth.

Except for those who can afford a chauffeur.

Re:Everywhere

[Ihlosi]

most of which was written by an apostle who said that what goes into a person's mouth does not defile them,

It wasn't an apostle who supposedly said that, but the water-into-wine guy himself.

Re: Everywhere

[bestweasel]

No it doesn't. That progressive scheme, introduced in the '90s by John Major's Tory government, was abandoned after a short time amid stories in the press of excessive fines for trivial offences (usually because the person ignored the summons). The status quo was restored and the well-off could breathe easily again.

Re:Everywhere

[DivineKnight]

Why do you hate fun?

Re:Everywhere

[davester666]

No warning in alberta. License and vehicle are gone for 3 days the first time, then it goes up after that. And appealing to the court is pointless because the law was written so that your license is suspended until the appeal is over, which is 6-12 months later...so it's ripe for abuse, as the cop gets to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.

Re:Everywhere

[penguinoid]

I do wish more religious people would read and understand their own holy book,

Trust me, you do not want people behaving as though they actually believe what their holy book says. What you want is people who pick the good parts of their holy book and conveniently ignore all the nasty parts.

Re: Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you shouldn't have to have a beer, just because you want to put a gun to your head.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't simply have to be excessive fines. By my office there's at least 3 speed limit signs where the speed limit drops by 5 mph which are obscured by trees. I noticed the city just planted another tree that in a few years will be obscuring another. Toss in that in the same area they have a school zone sign that uses signage different than every other school zone sign in the city as well as the state and you start to feel like the city is just actively being assholes.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand by that what they do is a stupid solution. It motivates the behavior of hiding speed limit signs and such. I tend to think there should be no monetary punishment for traffic infractions at all. If the point of traffic infractions is to improve safety of the roads then surely proper punishment should be to remove you from the roads if you preform unsafe actions. Use a points system, and once those points are gone, you lose your license. Done. It punishes everybody equally regardless.

Your way doesn't improve anything. Say a guy makes a million a year and hides 950 thousand of it? What if a guy makes a million a year but is drowning in debt and can barely pay his bills? No, monetary fines shouldn't be there at all. It creates the incentive for cities to do exactly what apparently the DOJ is trying to crack down on, and your method just increases the incentive.

Re:Everywhere

[jaseuk]

No we don't, but financial circumstances are taken into account. However, these are capped, so the rich don't suffer. I think it's Finland that link fines to percentages of weekly incoming or something.

Jason

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

$200 for speeding?

How about getting a ticket for doing 4mph over the speed limit and "Following too closely." (note: there was at least 100 yards between me and the guy in front of me. On the highway moving at 59mph)

Which cost me $800 once you include the ticket cost and the court fee's, filing fee's, etc.

You guys to the north have it easy at $200 for speeding.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

My dealings with state troopers have been much better than dealing with local cops.

One local town made the news not long ago. They had a population of 1500 people, and over $26,000,000 in outstanding traffic fines. The cops there knew every traffic violation on the books. They would sit and wait on the main highway that went through their town and ticket for everything!
I got a ticket there for the license plate frame extending 1/8 of an inch further onto the plate than was allowed. The cop actually had a ruler and measured it. The fine was $150.

The last state trooper I dealt with pulled me over for no slowing down while they had someone pulled over on the highway. He let it go with a warning and explained that I had to slow down to 20mph under the speed limit or move over a lane when passing a cop on a traffic stop.

Re:Everywhere

[jittles]

And the punishment for driving on a suspended/revoked license is? No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.

That is inadequate because then the state will start pressuring municipalities to issue fines. In fact, in most states, the state already gets a portion and already encourages municipalities to issue fines. The solution is to one of two things: Lump the money from the fines into different categories and issue rebates (income based) to people who do not receive a fine of that type for the year or donate the money to charities. The difficulty with charities is that it would be very easy to subvert that and divert the money to individuals.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that sounds great!

Replace a small fine with slave labor, nothing can go wrong there.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the opposite of what we have today then? Where republicunts blame shooting victims because they worked for Planned Parenthood?

They'll be blaming them for being unarmed and not shooting back, I guess.

Re:Everywhere

[Forgefather]

Not just North Carolina. In Missouri the law requires that anything seized through equitable sharing must go into the state's educational fund, and we don't have many problems with asset forfeiture.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

As a European I was horrified when I first found out that fines go anywhere else than into the tax pool in the US. Even to police departments? Insane to give such an incentive to abuse the power that police have been entrusted with. Experience here has shown that when private companies were given the authority to issue parking tickets, it was far too much power for such a profit-driven entity to have. Massive abuse ensued and former employees of such companies have anonymously confessed to journalists that they are taught how to take pictures of cars from such angles that it looks like a violation even when it isn't. A system in which anyone profits from violations of the law is fundamentally flawed. Such an incentive structure should not exist (hence privatized prisons are also a very, very bad idea).

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

The Finnish system is such that fines are "N daily incomes" where your "daily income" is based on all your taxable income the previous year / 365. N depends on what you're being fined for. As an alternative to paying it, you can actually also choose "part-time prison" in which case the number of days is halved. If you choose that, you're allowed to work normally and so on but you have to spend your time outside working hours in a minimum security prison. A teacher of mine said that he had done that when he got caught speeding quite excessively in his youth because he was curious and it doesn't result in anything worse on your record anyway.

Re:Everywhere

[rhazz]

I got a ticket there for the license plate frame extending 1/8 of an inch further onto the plate than was allowed. The cop actually had a ruler and measured it. The fine was $150.

The fine is ridiculous of course, but given how common the useless decorative frames are, you have to draw the line somewhere. A law specifying just how large frames can be makes sense. I have seen some decorative plate frames that obscure parts of the plate markings. If you want to put useless decorative items on your car, don't put it on your plate. I took off my dealership's stupid ad frame the day I drove the car off the lot.

The last state trooper I dealt with pulled me over for no slowing down while they had someone pulled over on the highway. He let it go with a warning and explained that I had to slow down to 20mph under the speed limit or move over a lane when passing a cop on a traffic stop.

Yeah, we have that law too, and most people are aware of it and follow it. If you see emergency vehicles on the side of the road, you switch lanes if you can, or otherwise keep to the far side of your lane and slow down. People getting clipped by some idiot who drove by too close happens more often than it needs to.

Re:Everywhere

[DuckDodgers]

If you read the report on Ferguson, it's worse than that. Someone is issued a fine, and when they fail to pay by a certain date they receive no second or third notice and are instead jailed for three days and then released and issued an additional fine for failing to pay the first fine on time. Then the person pays off the first fine and part of the second but can't scrape together the money to pay the rest of the second fine, so they're jailed again and issued a third fine.

But the Ferguson police would only target people with black skin for that kind of fundraising.

Re:Everywhere

[DuckDodgers]

The problem is that for many people outside major cities, there is no alternative way to get to work. When I worked a manufacturing job in college one of my coworkers was a guy who was driving without a license to and from work each day because his choices were "drive without a legal license" or "be unemployed".

Re:Everywhere

[DuckDodgers]

Brilliant. Thanks for sharing that.

Re:Everywhere

[RavenLrD20k]

I'd love to know what state so I can avoid it just because of the 4mph thing. In any reasonable state "Following too closely" is only applicable as a tack on ticket in an actual collision where you rear-end someone else as that's the only way to prove that you were following too close. If you're following someone and they slam on the brakes and you're able to come to a complete stop getting your vehicles within millimeters of each other but never touching, you're not following too close because you demonstrated you had the reaction time to justify your judgement in spacing. Because of its subjective nature in the definition of the law, the only admissible evidence to prove that one really was in violation isn't the Officer's perception, but an actual collision.

I have the distinct feeling you're not telling us something though. Speeding 23 mph above the limit in Georgia, USA nabbed my roomate a $276 fine. I've never had one go above $170 myself. My wife got one that would have been ~$120 for doing 16 over (had to pay the court 2x as much as "bail" for the Not Guilty plea... when we finally had the hearing the Judge threw it out due to the location that the officer stated he tagged her as being illegal since the curve was sharp enough that there was no way for the officer's vehicle to be visible for the requisite 500 foot minimum; got all the money back).

Re:Everywhere

[kilfarsnar]

I'd love to know what state so I can avoid it just because of the 4mph thing.

Probably Virginia. Don't speed in Virginia. Seriously, if you want to shake your head in disbelief, look up the speeding laws and fines in Virginia. It's hilarious as long as it's not happening to you.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do we lay this at the feet of police departments? Fines are determined by legislatures. Bail is set by judges (with recommendations by prosecutors.) Even B.A.C.'s are set by legislatures, not be police or sheriff's departments.

Re: Everywhere

[kilfarsnar]

The status quo was restored and the well-off could breathe easily again.

That is why the status quo is the status quo.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Ferguson police would only target people with black skin for that kind of fundraising.

If this was truly a practice designed for profit, targeting the poorest citizens doesn't make any sense.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to play the victim card.
It almost certainly was the case that your friend had his licence revoked for some legitimate reason, which was most likely alcohol related (since that's the most common cause.)
When I worked a manufacturing job in college one of MY coworkers not only couldn't drive to work, but had a good portion of his check going to the family of the person he injured while driving under the influence in an uninsured vehicle. He was legally required to work, as he would have been jailed for contempt of course should he have quit.
Bad decisions have consequences.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.

Even better: All fines are applied towards paying off the principle of the federal debt. That gets it as far as possible away from anyone's budget.

Re:Everywhere

[GodelEscherBlecch]

So. what - you got a ticket once and it made you have a bad day so it must be the same for everyone everywhere? The evidence does not support your position. Even if these fines were not being disproportionately levied against poor communities (I see that as the real factor, not race, but boy are those 2 tangled up in a big ol' Ooruboros / rat king type situation), the fact that there is 0 fucks given that a person can actually pay the fine as opposed to entering a downward spiral of late fees (which they also can't pay) is utterly ridiculous.

It's like the asshole who jacked up the price of a pill 4000x. It's a blatant, disgusting cash grab that is totally unsustainable and leaves devastation in it's wake, ensuring that these already struggling populations will be permanently stuck in the rat maze. Sure, lots of the problems in poor and black communities are perpetuated from within, but this is the kind of shit that is perpetrated upon them and they have every right to be pissed about it, particularly when it is occasionally seasoned with a police shooting or 10.

Re:Everywhere

[q4Fry]

The signs says "Speed enforced by Aircraft," but I have yet to see them strafe anyone.

Re: Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

It's generally easier for government to extort from people who don't have sufficient financial means to fight back.

Re:Everywhere

[sjames]

Nobody puts a gun to your head to do anything at all other than go to work and pay your taxes, but there's this thing we call liberty...

Re:Everywhere

[sjames]

The worst are places where you can either pay the ticket or you can contest it, but the non-refundable court cost is greater than the fine in that case (and you might still have to pay the ticket).

Re:Everywhere

[Ol Olsoc]

The signs says "Speed enforced by Aircraft," but I have yet to see them strafe anyone.

I'd thought about making a short movie once using that concept.

Re:Everywhere

[kheldan]

They only get to shoot at us if we get to shoot back, otherwise no deal. XD

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Use a points system, and once those points are gone, you lose your license. Done. It punishes everybody equally regardless.

This idea simply won't work. The states have done that with DUI's and the convict simply petitions the state with a "hardship" temporary license to get to and from work. I know people with six or seven DUI convictions, despite Oregon's "The least you'll lost is your license" ad campaign. Under the law your license is supposed to be suspended PERMANENTLY on your third offense, yet these people are still on the road and rack up convictions every few months. They never seem to go to prison either (again a five year stretch is REQUIRED after your third offense)

Re:Everywhere

[mysidia]

convict simply petitions the state with a "hardship" temporary license to get to and from work.

So either abolish "hardship" licenses Or put them in jail for a minimum of 90 days, if they violate while on a "hardship" license.

Re:Everywhere

[DedTV]

One of my coworkers ended up paying a total of $1900 and spent 3 days locked up over a license plate light that wasn't "bright enough". He got pulled over and got a $96 ticket. Rather than fight it, he just paid it. But, 3 months later he was pulled over and arrested because while the ticket said $96, the total was actually $104 after a "processing fee". They never notified him of the difference but after 90 days, his outstanding $8 debt caused an arrest warrant to be issued and since he got arrested on a Friday night, he had to spend the entire weekend in lockup for which he was charged the additional ~$1800 on top of the $8 to pay for his weekend in jail.

That's "excessive".

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no different than a mob initiated protection racket. Pay us or you might have problems.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, HOV lanes had a noble excuse for use. Now they don't. You can buy a vehicle with an HOV exception sticker and drive merrily as a single occupant without repercussions. That is selective pay as you go rules for people who can pay, while everyone else is relegated to every other lane, so the state sets up exclusivity based on the ability to pay and usage, which is a clear violation of the law, but no one challenges it. Frankly, if you get rid of HOV lanes, everyone would get to use them and therefore HOV lane infractions would disappear, but the state would never let that happen at nearly $500 a pop per violation.

I've seen people slightly veer into a lane and get ticketed. It's a ridiculous law.

Re:Everywhere

[Methadras]

Oh, it's worst than that. A first time DUI offense will probably run you anywhere from $10k - $20k and that is your out of pocket costs. That is one expensive drink and states are going to start dropping BAC's more and more. It's a huge profit center they will never get rid of.

Re:Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.

That's a step in the right direction, but it still isn't consistent with the Bill of Rights. Two of the most important rights arising under the 9th Amendment are the dual rights to ethical government and ethical practice of law.

For a government entity to keep money associated with fines or seizures generally creates an ethical conflict of interest, and thus is generally going to be illegal. This is true even if they attempt to launder the money by hiding it in the general budget, possibly claiming it isn't being used to pay the salaries of police officers or judges. We all know of many instances where governments in the USA have not had enough money to pay the salaries of their workers, and hence putting money into the general fund frees up money that might not otherwise exist to pay these people, creating a conflict of interest.

Your proposal solves this problem with respect to local government, but it simply moves the problem to another level. The key to solving this problem in general is to recognize that the money can't go into the budget of government at all, but rather must be tracked in an entirely separate fund that can not be mixed with the general budget. Even then, the requirement to avoid ethical conflict of interest will limit how the money in that separate fund can be used.

In practice, most governments in the USA routinely ignore their legal obligations with respect to ethics. It is illegal for police operations to fund themselves, under the highest law of the land, but this is often ignored. In large part, I suspect the driving force behind this is the US legal profession. They seem to be terrified that the public might remember the 9th Amendment exists, with the implications that has for the practice of law. The 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law, if actually observed, would force massive changes in how the legal profession does business. If nothing else, large portions of the legal code, involving lots of complexity, and even contradictions, would be invalidated, reducing the demand for the services of lawyers.

There seems to have been a long term trend towards making sure nobody gets selected for high judicial office that will rock the legal ethics boat. Thus, the problem of illegal government use of the police power is tangled together with the problem of ethics of law, creating a combined problem that is very difficult to unravel.

Unfortunately, major ethics problems in law have always been present in the USA, since the country was founded. It will be interesting to see whether the increased flow of information resulting from the Internet can help change that state of affairs.

Re:Everywhere

[DuckDodgers]

You're right, of course. He claimed the suspension had nothing to do with alcohol and was from some other bureaucratic nonsense, but of course I have no idea if he was telling the truth.

But my point is, suspending driver's licenses in rural and even some suburban areas does nothing, because the person - whether a victim of police abuse of power or a repeat drunk driver with a body count - is going to keep driving because they have no other economic option.

Re:Everywhere

[DuckDodgers]

Three reasons to target poor blacks:
1. They're racist and prefer targeting blacks. (See for further example that the Ferguson police had sent attack dogs on unarmed blacks as young as fourteen several times per year since 2005, and had not ever sent attack dogs on a white suspect, armed or not.)
2. If a victim can't afford the whole fine, they added repeat fines. A middle class target, black or otherwise, would only pay once and then another reason for a penalty would need to found.
3. A middle class target, black or otherwise, is more likely to have the money or just the political connections to challenge an unlawful fine in court.

Re:Everywhere

[rpstrong]

Jalopnik has a first person account from a reporter who spent three days in a Virginia jail for doing 93 in a 55 mph zone.

Re:Everywhere

[beastofburdon]

Also, do not speed in North or South Carolina. Them and Virginia pigs have a massive hardon for handing out speeding tickets to anyone from another state.
Also in that shithole called Virginia, it is illegal to use a radar detector.
My dad always joked with me that every third son born in Virginia was a state trooper, after I lived there for 5 years I realized he wasn't actually joking.

Re:Everywhere

[beastofburdon]

Yea, those are straight up extortion, and becoming the norm.

Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Joe_Dragon]

Ban speed cameras and red light ones a lot of them are rigged to make more profit by erroring in the states favor

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are cameras, can you not verify the result?

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty hard to verify... what's the state of the vehicle when the light turned red? Is the timer for yellow light long enough? Did the driver stop before turning right on red, or didn't he? Probably possible to address each problem but when there's an incentive to just charge everyone accuracy isn't the goal.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

I can't support claims that they're rigged, but I can believe that they do not clearly attribute to a useful reduction in automobile accidents.

Considering the aim of a government program such as RLC that is a civil service is supposed to not be about the money, I'll assume it's profit driven. In fact, people tend to ignore the tickets because it was not given to them by an officer of the law. I think that might fall under the grounds of requiring to identify yourself; the cameras don't have any human identification, and are thereby automated, and hence, not an officer of the law.

Calling Robocop.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, bear with me now, don't speed or run red lights.

Re: Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fine with red light cameras as long as the pedestrian lights have a walk countdown. If they do, there's zero excuse to run it and none of those metrics would be important.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, idiot, the POINT is that at intersections with these cameras, the yellow light is set to be extremely short, making it impossible to avoid running red lights.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Big Hairy Ian]

Bear in mind those radars are pretty error prone to start off with they shouldn't be admissible as evidence

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[thegarbz]

You don't need to ban anything. You just need to provide an audit trail. In Australia they send you 2 photos one of your before the intersection showing the red light, and one of you going through the intersection showing you didn't just happen to stop over the line, and along with it a link to a video of you getting caught complete with several seconds of footage either side.

You don't need to ban something because it can be abused.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ban the cameras instead of banning the rigging of them?

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[sjames]

In some U.S. cities, if they don't get 'enough' revenue from a red light cameras, they shorten the yellow to bring in more. If necessary, they'll make it short enough to create a zone where it is theoretically impossible to stop in time when the light goes yellow.

The system you describe would do nothing to stop that patently unfair and dangerous practice.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[thegarbz]

The system you describe would do nothing to stop that patently unfair and dangerous practice.

And yet it has stopped exactly that practice in Queensland as the length of the yellow light is coded into an Australian Standard. Part of the evidence chain shows the light switching sequence when you run it. Lovely little piece of evidence you can take to court, and the court doesn't just throw out a ticket like it does in the land of the free over the other side of the pacific. Here the courts force the councils to ensure they are following the rules.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[sjames]

Here, we have a "recommendation" with no force of law. That would need to change and the cameras would have to be replaced with models that capture the lights and video of the car before it could be feasible.

Either way, the current cameras would have to be banned outright.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[thegarbz]

Depending on your courts recommendations most definitely can hold a force of law, especially if they are in some formal standard, and if it can be proven that not abiding by that standard can have a negative impact (there were studies that show shorter yellows lead to an increase in whiplash injuries. For instance as an Engineer there's actually legally no Australian Standard with which I need to comply. Not by law. But god help me if I ever need to stand in a courtroom defending a design that killed someone which didn't at least meet the minimum standard requirements.

Re:Ban speed cameras and red light ones

[sjames]

In civil court, failure to follow best practice can indeed lead to a finding for the plaintiff. Alas, in order to get a city on this, you'd need to show that you had an accident and that the short yellow was solely responsible. All while the judge stands ready to dismiss the case on the thinnest of procedural excuses or crazy legal theory that absolves the government even if it is actually at fault.

If you somehow prevail anyway, they'll just have a longer all reds time to avoid collisions in the intersection while still unfairly fining people. If the collision was a rear ender from stopping short, they'll claim their maximum liability is the amount of the ticket since it was all your fault for not running the red.

That's the level of corruption many cities will sink to if there isn't an overriding law to stop them.

I say that as a one time resident of a town where the police would tailgate you hoping you would speed up to make a safe enough gap to pull over so they could nail you for speeding.

Last week tonight

[Anonymous Coward]

Is appropriate here. https://youtu.be/0UjpmT5noto

Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Anonymous Coward]

How about they also do away with Civil Asset Forfeiture considering that cops have now stolen more from people than all burglaries combined last year, and most likely this year as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Coupled with all the other crimes committed by cops and the "justice" system over the years, like the Cash for Kids program, how are these people any different from a government sanctioned mob? Then there are the dimwitted idiots that are still defending these monsters, is this really the society we want?

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[known_coward_69]

CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail. it's like everything, after the problem goes away you find new ways to enforce laws

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Anonymous Coward]

This, so much. In some jurisdictions the police can and will seize your car for something as relatively benign as soliciting a prostitute. And when you know that finding a tenth of a gram of marijuana in someone's car means your department gets to seize and sell that car, even if the person is never charged with a crime, there is a huge incentive to plant evidence and engage in other corrupt activities.

Civil asset forfeiture needs to stop.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Darinbob]

Perhaps there was an original reason, but there are a couple problems. First it has been expanded well beyond the original concept. And second there is no proof necessary before forfeiture happens. It would be blatantly unconstitutional if it were not for the Supreme Court siding with the hysterical tough-on-crime folks.

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[HiThere]

As I understand it (see other posts for the official line sold to the public) the purpose is to deprive people of the ability to hire lawyers to defend themselves. I don't believe that there is any requirement that guilt be proven, or even that charges be formally filed. The first time I heard of it being used it was against a doctor who was prescribing more pain medication than the DIA thought was appropriate.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[MyAlternateID]

As I understand it (see other posts for the official line sold to the public) the purpose is to deprive people of the ability to hire lawyers to defend themselves.

So the intention is to rob the accused (who is innocent until proven guilty) of a chance to confront his accusers and achieve the good representation that true due process requires?

This intention is already manifest in other ways. The worst of which is the prosecutorial abuse of the system. The prosecutor completely throws the book at someone, tacking on multiple charges leading to years of imprisonment for a comparatively minor offense, but then offers a reasonable sentence if the accused pleads guilty. Many criminal cases never even go to trial because of this, making a mockery of the foundational concept that government carries the burden of proof.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail. it's like everything, after the problem goes away you find new ways to enforce laws

Giving the executive branch more powers to fix such problems is a really, really bad idea.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Pseudonym]

CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail.

Indeed, so write the law so the effect is to freeze assets, which would then be forfeited if a successful conviction happens.

No conviction, no crime. No crime, no forfeiture.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[John.Banister]

So, what I read here is that "the best lawyers" can make violating the law not matter and that this is fine for hereditary wealth but not for mafia wealth. How about we ditch CAF and go to single payer for lawyers? This would also greatly level the legal playing field between individuals and corporate entities.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[AmiMoJo]

It discourages foreign investment too. A lot of Chinese people have been complaining (in a series of stories on state television) that they tried to buy property in the US, took cash for a deposit and the police stole it.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[drinkypoo]

CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail

And anti-drug laws were originally created for all the wrong reasons, all of which are profit-centered. We could go down the list as usual but that would be tedious. Suffice to say that Big Pharma and Big Prison are the Big Supporters of the War On Some Drugs. Suffice to say that when you combine CAF with unsupported drug policies, the result is that the laws were created specifically to enable theft from people committing victimless "crimes".

Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Anonymous Coward]

Still illegal and likely unconstitutional.

If you freeze someones assets, how do you propose they retain legal representation to defend against the crimes they are charged with ? ( lawyers do not work for free )

You're effectively denying them the right to due process, hence the constitutional conflict.

Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Ihlosi]

If you freeze someones assets, how do you propose they retain legal representation to defend against the crimes they are charged with ?

There are always public defenders if you can't afford to pay a lawyer.

Unfortunately, "due process" only means that you may have a somewhat competent lawyer, and not the best lawyer you could have afforded if your assets weren't frozen.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[DuckDodgers]

Plus the penalties for crack - more frequently used by blacks - were literally ten times higher than the penalties for using cocaine. So it got to be abusive of power, legalized theft, and racist too!

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[HiThere]

Yeah, that's the way I read it. Mind you, it's gotten a lot worse than what I suppose the original purpose to have been.

Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. You only get it if you are homeless. Otherwise they will assert that all money you have is both subject to forfeiture AND used as a reason to deny public defender. This happened to whitey bulger.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one and only one way to ever change any of this.

And that is the Syrian solution.
The Russian solution.
The French solution.
The Colonies solution.

Not that what comes after will be any better than what was removed.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome to america! we don't want you here anyway, thanks for the cash.

Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture

[sjames]

Actually, that's another area that needs serious fixing. Public defenders are often so overbooked that they first meet their client IN the courtroom. It's not actually reasonable to call that representation.

Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Pseudonym]

Still illegal and likely unconstitutional.

We'll see about that.

Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture

[Agripa]

If you freeze someones assets, how do you propose they retain legal representation to defend against the crimes they are charged with?

You do what our local Missouri courts do not far from Ferguson which is mentioned in the article. If the person cannot afford an attorney and can prove it, the court appoints one but only if the judge thinks you will go to jail for months or more. If you can in theory afford an attorney but civil assets forfeiture prevents it, then too bad.

Having been pulled over for *wearing my seatbelt* where the cop contradicted himself and lied in court multiple times but the judge did not care, I have personal knowledge that local justice here in Missouri is not.

Loretta Lynch

[frovingslosh]

Hard to believe that the D.O.J. is cracking down on Profit-Driven Policing when Obama's new Attorney General has been a huge advocate of "civil forfeiture" where the government takes your money without charging you with any crime or even having any suspicion that you committed any crime. I even saw sign on Interstate 70 this summer when driving through Kansas that there "checkpoints" ahead to check for "drugs" or "cash". Just part of the government's war on citizens.

Re: Loretta Lynch

[Anonymous Coward]

I am number 1 person against Eric Holder, but he ended CAF at the end of his term in the DOJ. It may be the only thing he did correct in his entire time there.

Did Lynch undo that and reinstate them?

Re: Loretta Lynch

[ShaunC]

He placed some limits on it, but only at the federal level. Forfeiture is still rampant at the state level. I don't think Lynch has reversed Holder's federal directives yet.

Re: Loretta Lynch

[Anonymous Coward]

Tourist agencies in Europe warn tourist to not go to small town America because of how likely it is for a tourist to get their assets taken by the police.
The police is counting on it that a European will not go through the decade long legal process to get their assets back.

Re: Loretta Lynch

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! So Europe thinks we're all corrupt ignorant hillbillies straight out of a Chevy Chase movie?

Wait a minute! I just had a strange thought... What if they're right? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sudden-clarity-clarence

Re: Loretta Lynch

[compro01]

Much the same thing is also being said in Canada.

Re: Loretta Lynch

[Agripa]

They aren't. It is just another big lie marketing campaign.

I used to live

[penguinoid]

I used to live in a place where the usual way to deal with speeding was to pay the standard bribe. If it was a bus, the bribe was bigger but the passengers would pitch in without complaint. As far as I can tell, that system worked very well for traffic violations and way better than the American system, where everyone is pretending they don't do bribes but instead they do it via crappy laws/policies and more inefficiently. Another similarity/difference is, there officers' salaries were reduced to account for the traffic violation income, while in the US police department budget is reduced to account for the traffic violation income.

Re:I used to live

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to live

How is it on the other side?

Re:I used to live

[Zontar The Mindless]

"Jag brukade bo"--inte "Jag brukade leva".

Re:I used to live

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you expect people to follow the law if those enforcing it are criminals?

Re:I used to live

[Anonymous Coward]

Man brukade inte bo.. man bodde. Jösses.

Re:I used to live

[penguinoid]

How do you expect people to follow the law if those enforcing it are criminals?

Which country are you talking about?

Re:I used to live

[Zontar The Mindless]

Given that so many Swedes feel the need to "correct" my wife's English--always wrongly, I might add--just because she's Asian, I've got to where I don't trust random ACs offering to "correct" my Swedish very much. Usually it's because they don't really understand English nearly as well as they pretend to. A bit like you, I suspect.

Re:I used to live

[Anonymous Coward]

Ledsen, jag är inte din ursprungliga AC, så du kan gräva ner stridsyxan. För ordningens skull; Om du talar om för någon som har svenska som modersmål, att du brukade bo någonstans, kommer de antagligen att hålla sig för skratt och låtsas som det regnar, men det är inte korrekt. Varsågod, här har du en sida med hela grammatiken, du behöver inte tro mig.

Re:I used to live

[beastofburdon]

I don't know who AC is referring to, but it applies quite well to the U.S., UK, and many others.

Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a very serious problem, and the linked articles don't do a good job explaining the actual issue.

There are a lot of people who a 375$ fine (minimum for speeding in a construction zone nearby) for speeding is not something they can immediately pay, and may be 30% or more of their monthly income. If you can't pay immediately, you have to make a deal with whoever the Police contract out to.

The trick is that a lot of those poeple charge an initial fee for the service along with interest and continuing fees, and any payment you make goes toward their fees and interest BEFORE it starts paying the actual fine down. These fees are typically 20% of the original fine or more, and for low income people make it effectively impossible to pay their actual fine.

This then leads them to paying hundreds of dollars over the original fine, with none of it going to the original fine until the point where they are then jailed for not paying the fine. It is pure and out right corruption and fraud, and heavy legal action needs to be taken against any county or company that is involved.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Sarten-X]

I used to work nights on a road directing traffic. Every time I put on the reflective vest, I got to see the blood stain from my predecessor who got hit when someone didn't think they really needed to heed the warning signs.

Yes, a speeding fine in an area where pedestrians are present should make your life hell for a while. You're risking someone else's life for the sake of getting to your destination a few seconds earlier. You don't get that right, regardless of how high or low your income is.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

A simple solution is to make it progressive based on income like some european countries do. If you are Mark Zuckerberg and get caught speeding you'd get a fine well over a million dollars.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a speeding fine in an area where pedestrians are present should make your life hell for a while.

Doesn't stop anyone speeding and driving dangerously next to cyclists and other pedestrians, no matter how much I agree.

But what the GP was talking about is that flat fines are stupid and you appear to missed the point. If someone makes $60k/yr, a $300 fine is an "inconvenient tax" on them, and their opinion is that they did nothing wrong, like most here. But if you make $10k/yr, $300 fine can be crippling. And then there are people that make $200+k, and for them a $300 fine is hustle, nothing more.

Perhaps a better system would be to base fines on person's annual income. Like 1% of their yearly income, with $50 floor (considering driving costs money anyway). So a $10k/yr poor person pays $100, which is a lot of money for them. But a $100k/yr upper middle class person pays $1000. And it's $10k fine for the $1m/yr upper class person. Then such a fine is painful for everyone involved, not just the poorest.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course if your predecessor had been hit at 25 mph rather than 35 mph, they wouldn't have suffered such a horrible fate.

The problem with traffic laws is that you have little Hitlers (cops) who get to decide if you were doing something wrong or not. They can use the law to make this decision, or disregard the law entirely. There are plenty of laws about 'driving without due caution' and other catch-alls. Not to mention that if a cop says you were speeding, you have absolutely no recourse even with video evidence including a GPS speed measurement (disregard the fact you were going exactly at or under the speed limit).

Cops are mostly unintelligent conservatives. Conservatives operate on a kind of shame system - if they don't like something, it becomes Literal Evil(TM). A cop also has the power of life and death over you with no consequences, no oversight and total immunity from the law. So combine all three of these things: no oversight, unintelligent, operates on a shame system, and you get the equivalent of heavily armed hall monitors who do things like fine people for having tennis shoes that squeak on the tile floor and shoot people for stopping to take a drink at the water fountain.

Fuck cops and fuck you.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

their opinion is that they did nothing wrong, like most here

When you see speed limits decrease from 55 mph to 25 mph on an 8 lane divided highway with no pedestrians, no cyclists, no residential zones and no driveways to turn off onto, you kind of start to understand how the system works. Then the 25 mph sign is taken down, so it's a speed trap without any posted speed limit signs. The county will park about 12 cop cars out there to write tickets to the people who have no clue that the speed limit goes from 55 mph to 25 mph. 911 response for things like home invasions start doubling or tripling since the county has all their cops parked to write tickets.

It's pretty easy to see why people hate cops and mistrust traffic laws.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[drinkypoo]

Yes, a speeding fine in an area where pedestrians are present should make your life hell for a while. You're risking someone else's life for the sake of getting to your destination a few seconds earlier. You don't get that right, regardless of how high or low your income is.

The problem is that the speeding fine is in effect at midnight when there's no pedestrians around, too. A law that says thou shalt always slow down for a construction zone is stupid, especially since we recently got the law that isn't stupid: slow down or switch lanes while you go past construction crews. The signage (the "zone") is there to inform you of possible pedestrians. The requirement to your behavior should be related to the pedestrians, not the signs. And road works should be designed with barriers etc. to protect road workers, because what fucking year is it?

Re: Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple fix to counter your idea is that the ultra-rich will simply hire a driver to take them where they wish. If caught speeding, the driver gets fined, not the passenger.

Re: Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft your thinking too small.

Create a corporation, the house, car, etc are all in Trusts that are managed by the corporation and provided to the CEO as a perk.

You corp to corp contract out your services and all the money is paid to the corporation. Which provides you with everything plus a minimum wage pay check.

The corporation can even give you loans to buy some things and thus show you are over extended in credit.

Now you get pulled over, you only make minimum wage and due to the loans have no money available. Thus you cant afford the fines! All while living in a multi-million dollar house, driving new expensive cars and arranging annual two week long board meetings in Hawaii.

The added advantage is if you happen to get drunk and kill someone, well they cant touch your assets.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Sarten-X]

The OP said nothing about flat fines. Rather, he mentioned a minimum that imposes a hardship on someone with low income, and complains that the fine and associated fees should be lower. I'm suggesting that the total cost should be weighed against the health of another human being.

In some jurisdictions, including the one where I worked, judges already have the (seldom-used) ability to raise the fine to meet the goals of fairness, retribution, and rehabilitation. I do think that should be utilized more, but that's a different matter.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Sarten-X]

I worked at a theater. We had pedestrian crowds at midday and at midnight. My post was actually usually guiding trucks out the back, which put me standing just around a blind corner on the road.

Are you suggesting that we barricade the road before every performance ends? Should we redesign the city's roads to allow a few trucks to pull out easily each week? Or maybe, just maybe, drivers should be aware that they're operating a machine that can easily kill or maim people with only a moment's notice.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In my area midnight is when construction normally occurs. You can't just ignore signage because you think no work is going on, because the presence of construction crews is not obvious to you. If construction has restricted flow, such as when lanes are closed or other impediments to traffic are in effect, such as uneven roadbed or narrow lanes then even when there are no workers present slower speeds might make sense.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[wings]

It is a good idea but I suspect the problem will become accurately determine someone's income or net compensation. Without a way to do that you'll have CEOs that accept a token $1 salary only paying the minimum fines.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only half the solution, crippling someone economically for making a stupid mistake e.g missing a sign, is still fundamentally unfair. It's not what the fine is for. If a judge can raise the fines in the name of fairness and retribution, he or she should able to lower them too.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Cederic]

You're missing his point entirely.

His point is that people with low income/assets are unable to pay the fine, and any money that they do pay goes on interest and fees, not the fine.

This means that irrespective of whether the fine adequately compensates for the risk to human health or not, someone's getting fucked over by the system.

The amount of the fine is totally fucking irrelevant, it's the way in which it's levied that's the issue.

Now do you understand, or should we offer to cover the fine for the person that aims for you?

Re:Actually a serious problem

[sjames]

So make sure it is hell for Morbux when he blows past you in his Ferarri. Currently, the poor end up in what is constructively debtor's prison and Morbux peels a couple of bills off of his pocket change and goes on his way more annoyed than chastened.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[drinkypoo]

Are you suggesting that we barricade the road before every performance ends?

That would be the cheapest and easiest solution: put out some cones and a sign for traffic control at that time.

Should we redesign the city's roads to allow a few trucks to pull out easily each week?

Yes, either that or the city should be blamed for poor planning: they shouldn't have allowed a cinema to be built there if it was going to cause a traffic hazard. That's part of their job. Public safety is more important than public access to movie theaters.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Sarten-X]

That would be the cheapest and easiest solution: put out some cones and a sign for traffic control at that time.

If a driver isn't paying attention to speed limits, existing warning signs, or a man standing by the road in a bright yellow vest and waving bright orange flags, what makes you think they'll pay attention to a few cones?

Public safety is more important than public access to movie theaters.

Actually, the law already says that public safety is more important than a driver's need to get somewhere a few seconds faster. That's why the speed limit exists in the first place.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[drinkypoo]

If a driver isn't paying attention to speed limits, existing warning signs, or a man standing by the road in a bright yellow vest and waving bright orange flags, what makes you think they'll pay attention to a few cones?

You use cones to create a temporary lane division to control traffic flow.

the law already says that public safety is more important than a driver's need to get somewhere a few seconds faster. That's why the speed limit exists in the first place.

A sensible city code also includes requirements for lines of sight, etc., when points of ingress and egress to/from the property are permitted, to prevent creating situations like that one.

Re:Actually a serious problem

[Sarten-X]

You use cones to create a temporary lane division to control traffic flow.

It's a two-lane road (one each way) already. Creating a temporary division is not possible. What is possible is for drivers to follow the law and go slow enough that they can stop for obstacles in the road.

A sensible city code also includes requirements for lines of sight, etc., when points of ingress and egress to/from the property are permitted, to prevent creating situations like that one.

And in situations where legislation can't change the physical reality, it requires warning signs and slower speeds, both of which are in effect already.

The simple answer is for drivers to obey the law. Those that don't get the punishment set forth in the statute, which reflects the same hardship their careless actions cast on the rest of society, including lowly stagehands.

Start in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.

Like I said double jeopardy.

Re:Start in Texas

[tgu23monkforhire]

Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.

Like I said double jeopardy.

Sounds good to me. This sounds a lot like taxation without representation. I don't have a say in it, I am not benefiting in it in any way, so therefor I am not being represented.

Re:Start in Texas

[Ol Olsoc]

Sounds good to me. This sounds a lot like taxation without representation. I don't have a say in it, I am not benefiting in it in any way, so therefor I am not being represented.

Ironically, it seems to be prevalent in states where God rules, and Taxes are considered a Democrat evil.

Re:Start in Texas

[drkstr1]

Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.

Like I said double jeopardy.

I can't get my WA drivers licence because those scumbags have it blocked for some tickets I got in ~2002 (I moved away from TX shortly after highschool). All my actual fines (my "debt to society") have been paid. This bastard ass private corp has my license for Ransome to the tune of $2,500 in "surcharges" (the exact term listed on the paperwork I got).

Re:Start in Texas

[drkstr1]

PS: I just want to reiterate, THE STRUGGLE IS REAL. In addition to those fines I owe TX, I now owe WA $2,100 for getting a ticket for no license or insurance. They ran my plate and saw the car was registered to someone who only had a state ID and decided to pull me over and ask me a few questions. After ransaking my car, they let me go with a ticket. As it turns out, driving without a license is only an arrestable offense if you fail to provide a valid ID at the time of the offense. I got lucky that time (getting away with nothing but a little more debt tacked on to my household), but I have spent time in jail in TX for "crimes" that essentially amount to paperwork violations. I still to this day, struggling to get out of this cycle and have this burden off my chest once and for all.

Re:Start in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'crimes' in TX are bullshit the ones in WA were not (though the stop may have been bullshit). You knew you weren't supposed to be driving. WA has good public transportation in a lot of places and many areas are walker or biker friendly. Getting rid of a car will save you a lot of money. I didn't get one until I was 30. I wish you luck in your lawsuit against the Municipal Services Bureau and TX and thank you for reaffirming my desire to never move to TX.

Re:Start in Texas

[drkstr1]

The 'crimes' in TX are bullshit the ones in WA were not (though the stop may have been bullshit). You knew you weren't supposed to be driving. WA has good public transportation in a lot of places and many areas are walker or biker friendly. Getting rid of a car will save you a lot of money. I didn't get one until I was 30. I wish you luck in your lawsuit against the Municipal Services Bureau and TX and thank you for reaffirming my desire to never move to TX.

I got by just fine in Seattle. It wasn't until I had to move to the heavily conservative Hanford area (Pasco) that I ended up purchasing a car in cash, that I still to this day drive it only out of necessity. While I understand the public need for insurance and licensing, I have never been in a wreck, or received any kind of moving violation since the age of 16. I consider it my free right of transportation, in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I did not show up to court in WA, and do not plan to pay a dime on that ticket. Eventually, it will catch up to me, and I will be physically restrained, but in front of a judge, and told I can either pay up the cash or sit it out in jail for credit paid out at $x per day on my fine. When that day comes, I will choose to sit it out, just as I did in TX.

Re:Start in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, What judge lets you choose between jail or paying a fine? Almost everyone would choose jail if that was an option. They stick you in jail and then when you get out you STILL have to pay the fine.

You should pay your fines by looting the state government coffers. You just need to be college buddies with a guy who went on to become a professional bureaucrat. All the cool kids are doing it. When you get arrested just tell them your name is "24601".

Also: you make very bad/stupid decisions. I look down on you for being born poor and your "poor-person thinking". IE: "I can just not pay this and default"

When your credit is completely worthless and you have entire states where you can't go without being placed under arrest: that isn't called "good decision making."

Re:Start in Texas

[drkstr1]

The option to sit out a fine is SOP. The going rate is about $100 a day (varies by state, and even county). I got $200 for being a trustee (had to mop floors and say yes sir no sir a lot). You can sit out any fine or ticket you get, no problems, free and clear. The issue with TX is that I owe money (surcharges) to a private corp in Texas, with the legal authority to block my license. These surcharges are what amount to a "processing fee" even though I never once used their payment processing services to pay my legal fines (opting instead for my right to sit out). It's actually not even on my credit, as they hold no actual debt over me. All they have is the power to coerce payment via the inter-state license ceck system (don't know the exact name of it). The WA ticket is another matter. This is money I actually owe (until it is cleared by time served).

Re:Start in Texas

[drkstr1]

Also for the record, it took me exactly 50 days to sit out my fines, in Denton county jail, TX. I do not recommend it.

Re:Start in Texas

[Zontar The Mindless]

But it's not the government taking your money, so that makes it perfectly okay.

Re:Start in Texas

[Zontar The Mindless]

Bzzzzzt--WRONG.

You have no "right" to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. The laws of most if not all US states make it quite clear that driving is a privilege.

Re: Start in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, Texas has laws on the books that make speed cameras illegal. The same goes for red light cameras. Municipalities must have permission from the Dept of Transportation ( engineering assessment must be done first ) before the cameras can even be installed.

Local funding cant keep up

[AHuxley]

The problem is the tool set of advance electronics tracking, on going maintenance costs of "free" military hardware at a city, state and local level is starting to catch up with traditional wage based/over time policing budgets.
The new federal mil toys have real federal budget support budgets and upgrade costs over the years that a city or state did not fully understand.
Add in over time, pensions, fancy out sourced "private" sector training and the costs are getting more interesting every decade. How to cover the costs?
Civil forfeiture in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that no longer goes to the victim or into state, city funds but can flow in part into a department with not much oversight or controls on what the cash is spent on.
The constant need to top up limited funds becomes the mission.

Re:Local funding cant keep up

[MyAlternateID]

The problem is the tool set of advance electronics tracking, on going maintenance costs of "free" military hardware at a city, state and local level is starting to catch up with traditional wage based/over time policing budgets. The new federal mil toys have real federal budget support budgets and upgrade costs over the years that a city or state did not fully understand. Add in over time, pensions, fancy out sourced "private" sector training and the costs are getting more interesting every decade. How to cover the costs? Civil forfeiture in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that no longer goes to the victim or into state, city funds but can flow in part into a department with not much oversight or controls on what the cash is spent on. The constant need to top up limited funds becomes the mission.

Yet another force making sure that self-respecting people with integrity who really care about their community don't want to become police officers.

Excessive bail - based on the offense - also...

[gavron]

Another way to make money is to make excessive bail requirements in possible
collusion with bail bondsmen.

TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and
the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.

Now the "I'm sorry but it got long" part:

Bail from the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Excessive bail shall not be required"

Excessive is when it's greater than the amount necessary to bring the offender to trial. From Wikipidia:
"In Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Court found that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Judges are starting to agree: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2...

But some are still hungry for HUMONGOUS bail to avoid looking soft on crime when BAIL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME.

Man kills cop: 3 million dollars
http://www.philly.com/philly/n...

Man kills man: 2 million dollars
http://www.bellinghamherald.co...

Cop kills man: 1.5 million:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/ja...

The US DoJ ought to take a long hard look at how our nation's Courts are handing out large bail
requirements --unconstitutionally-- to make it look like they're "tough on crime."

In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND
the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.

We need a lot of reform in the criminal justice system. Hopefully the DoJ won't whitewash
bail while they look at the other methods that "the justice system" screws the people.

Full disclosure: I've never been arrested, offered bail, denied bail, nor am personally
part of the legal / "justice" system.

E

Re:Excessive bail - based on the offense - also...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND
the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.

You're wrong.

Bail is only supposed to prevent rich people from going to jail.

Different crimes have different richness bars.

The system is working as intended.

Re:Excessive bail - based on the offense - also...

[Dayze!Confused]

I would add that the bond system is used to justify higher bails as not being excessive. For example, 200,000 bail may be excessive, but oh, guess what, you can just pay 20,000 to the bail bondsman instead, so if you think 200,000 is excessive it isn't because you can just pay 20,000. What most people don't know until they go through something which requires excessive bails is that the bond payment is forfeited even if you show up to court. That person now has the option, if they cannot put up 200,000 and float it until the end of trial, to spend 20,000 as a non-refundable expense to have restricted freedoms restored while awaiting trial, or stay in jail.

When I read the 8th amendment I do not see bonds mentioned as part of consideration for excessive bail, and the bond is essentially an excessive fee paid. Would it be the case that if bonds were done away with that the amount that makes a bail excessive would be much, much lower?

Re:Excessive bail - based on the offense - also...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, completely. However, unlike when the 8th amendment was written, today you can pay things with credit cards with money you don't have. So how do you know what is an appropriate bail? You base it on their credit rating?

Re:Excessive bail - based on the offense - also...

[c]

TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.

The nature of the crime (and likely sentence) has strong influence on being a flight risk. Someone who might not run from a 6 month sentence isn't likely to stick around for a life sentence. A cop who shoots somebody on the job is less likely to be convicted than someone who shoots someone over a drug deal, and tends to get shorter sentences.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?

It's not extortion if

[RichMan]

It is not extortion if you are the law.

Seems like the system is very very broken in the good ol' US of A.

How does this work loog-term?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive my ignorance, but how does this last past one election cycle? Whatever administration puts this stuff in place would be voted into the gutter in 2-4 years, no?

This is What happen From the No Tax Pledge

[Anonymous Coward]

You Voted for them because they Promised to Cut Taxes But Not services.
Guess What they are Politicians not Magicians.

So stop complaining. You got what you asked for.

Re:This is What happen From the No Tax Pledge

[serviscope_minor]

You Voted for them because they Promised to Cut Taxes But Not services.

No I didn't! I didn't vote for them at all. Hell I've never even voted in an election that could have affected it in any way.

You know, what with not being American and all.

Re:This is What happen From the No Tax Pledge

[Anonymous Coward]

In which case that post was not directed at you so kindly STFU, genius.

Also look at speed limits set to low

[Joe_Dragon]

Also look at speed limits set to low.

Most of the IL toll-way was 55 (real in forced seems to be 70-75) now more parts of it are 60-70.

Even in the 45 / 55 work zones no one does that and the cops lets you do 65-75 with them going faster then that.

Cops Steal More than Criminals

[Jodka]

I posted this link a few days ago here on ./ but it's topical and worthy of a repost here:
Cops Now Steal More from Citizens than do Actual Criminals

And also on the "policing for profit" topic: Prisoners are now billed for their time in jail.. More here with some commentary here.

Re:Cops Steal More than Criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but most of that "stolen" money came from Bernie Madoff and was sent back to his victims, so....

Fairness and Missing Bullets

[JimSadler]

There is so much nonsense in city and county governments that I think anyone taking reform seriously is at risk of being assassinated. Somehow America can not afford America. So we have all these entities capturing money any way they can. There is an area of study called poor law. trying to make reasonable laws to deal with the poor is an ongoing battle that has lasted for hundreds of years. Ant tiny bit of progress is rare.

Re:Fairness and Missing Bullets

[Zontar The Mindless]

Be careful what you wish for.

Civil Asset Forfeitures

[blogagog]

I hope they find a way to do away with civil asset forfeitures too. That is the worst thing police do in America today. Steal things from citizens to boost their income.

Re:Civil Asset Forfeitures

[myowntrueself]

I hope they find a way to do away with civil asset forfeitures too. That is the worst thing police do in America today. Steal things from citizens to boost their income.

Look at it this way; at least the organised banditry that the USA operates on is applied to US citizens as well as the rest of the world!

The rest of the world feels your pain and I'm sure many overseas would be happy to help you oust those thugs who call themselves police and politicians in the USA.

Counties too

[Anonymous Coward]

San Bernardino County, CA hired hundreds inspectors to go to folks houses and properties and fine them for "beautification" issues, often with no or very little notice to give time to correct or dispute it. The fines are in the thousands of dollars. No consideration at all for the income of the owner and the fines are often several times the cost of the property taxes they already collect.

To put this in perspective a lot of these efforts are in very remote properties who have structures and contents that have been there for several decades. t appears they have ignored past grandfathering and simply with little or no public notice, and little to no owner notice, just walked around and wrote up large fines.

This is still going on and accelerating.

Change how fines and forfeited assets are handled

[Solandri]

All the money from fines and forfeited criminal assets should go into a Federal escrow fund. Every year on April 15, the total amount in that fund gets divided by the number of people filing tax returns, and gets added as a credit to each and every tax return (2x for married couples filing jointly).

Those fines and penalties are supposed to compensate for crimes against society. So it should be distributed back to society at large, not to police or government coffers.

John Oliver covered this...

[binarstu]

John Oliver delivered an excellent treatment of this topic that is both informative and entertaining (and maddening). It's worth a watch.

Re:John Oliver covered this...

[ZorroXXX]

My thought exactly as wel, the video referred gives a very good insight into the problem.

This guy is "brillent" and despite the fact that he does not like to call himself a journalist, John Olvier really is one of the worlds most important ones, bringing attention to many serious and important issues.

Should be choice

[cyberspittle]

Should be fine or jail time - hey, that rhymes!

Get theh state out of the way

[Anonymous Coward]

If law enforcement is making a profit, it makes sense to privatise it.

--
roman_mir

Eliminate the human factor ...

[golodh]

Points system? Nah ... humbug. Cash is better. Much better.

But let's face it, it's always the Human factor that's the problem, right? Driving Under Influence, speed violations, failing to signal turns, red light running ...

So let's do something radical!

Ban all manually operated vehicles from public roads and mandate fully automatic vehicles throughout. Prohibit the production of cars with manual controls. That will get you 100% compliance with all and any traffic regulations.

Problem solved. Right?

What? Oh ... I see ... the revenue from tickets and fines will dry up. Hmm ... got to solve that too. Ah wait. Got it.

Add a metering module to every car's on-board computer that bills its owner per ride via direct debit. The municipality, the county, the state, they can all impose a tax (to make up for lost fines) and add it to the bill. It will be transferred to them automatically. The car's software will stop the car it can no longer debit your account. We'll call that legislative proposal CART (Common Automatic Ride Ticketing), shall we?

There ... I've thought of everything.

Re:Eliminate the human factor ...

[desdinova 216]

there are people working on that. Though it's probably a minimum of 25 years before it's implemented on a wide scale.

I Lease My Car Your Insensitive Clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you know that finding a tenth of a gram of marijuana in someone's car means your department gets to seize and sell that car

I Lease My Car Your Insensitive Clod!

The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

DOJ is part of the problem. They clearly work for the drug and human trafficking cartels, and the DOJ has been responsible for more constitutional right violations than any other agency.

The right to drive

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ninth Amendment makes it quite clear that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The law is subordinate to the Constitution.

A "right" to do something means that the government can limit it only when it has a reasonable interest that outweighs your right. The competing interests have to be weighed and balanced one way or the other. I can make a reasonable argument that in the 21st century, I have a right to drive as part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are limits to this right: pass a simple driving test to prove I am competent, avoid drunk driving or reckless driving. But no one can say that, for no reason, they are taking away a "privilege to drive", because I have a right to drive.

Need a simple rule

[gurps_npc]

If you say you can't pay the monetary charges, you get hit with community service. Suddenly I bet those fees vanish into thin air.

Re:Need a simple rule

[Agripa]

If you say you can't pay the monetary charges, you get hit with community service. Suddenly I bet those fees vanish into thin air.

At least here in Missouri, the cities do not implement community service as an option.

Not when the racist blacks caused the crime.

[sethstorm]

Kind of hard to claim grievances if you're the primary offender.

Even harder when you use racism against whites to justify looting, rioting, and non-enforcement of laws for black thuggery.

The only thing that should have happened in Missouri is for law enforcement to be as strict as Singapore. For every cry of racism, act with more strictness. Stop only when the black racists (and their financial backers) are soundly defeated, spines broken.

Re:Not when the racist blacks caused the crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Are you really defending a system where you get arrested for being poor and having been arrested? Do you really consider being poor a crime? "Hard to complain", my ass. With idiots like you, it's no wonder your prison system is full, you still haven't left the 19th century, have you?

Re:Not when the racist blacks caused the crime.

[DuckDodgers]

First, these penalties were for things like driving without a seatbelt on, or having an expired vehicle registration, or parking in a no-parking zone. We're not speaking of felony acts or even misdemeanors.
Second, many thousands of people protested the Ferguson shootings without breaking any laws. Every looter and arsonist should be prosecuted and jailed, but you're blind - or racist - if you think that the actions of fifty or a hundred black criminals make it moral for Ferguson police to mistreat forty thousand other black residents in the town. That's especially true since many of the criminal looters didn't even live in Ferguson, they just used the tension as an excuse to come to the town and stir up trouble.

Re:Not when the racist blacks caused the crime.

[sethstorm]

Every looter and arsonist should be prosecuted and jailed, but you're blind - or racist - if you think that the actions of fifty or a hundred black criminals make it moral for Ferguson police to allegedly do some fictional wrong to forty thousand other black residents in the town.

If they take the direction of the looters and professional agitators, which they did, then the answer is to bring Singapore style strictness in law enforcement to Ferguson. If that means Sharpton, Crump, or their defenders get punished for fomenting violent hate crimes (if not terrorism), fine. If it means protecting the police and their families with deadly force, then fine. You do not give in to such agitating groups - you remove them before they can stir up the population.

That's especially true since many of the criminal looters didn't even live in Ferguson, they just used the tension as an excuse to come to the town and stir up trouble.

They stirred up trouble and residents got caught up in it.

Re:Not when the racist blacks caused the crime.

[beastofburdon]

If the police are abusing the citizens then they do not deserve safety and should not be allowed to have it.

policing for profit - red light camara anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

So can we get red light cameras included in this also?

The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

Can Google explain proof my ware = safe via VirusTotal which GOOGLE owns by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit https://www.virustotal.com/en/... + 32-bit too https://www.virustotal.com/en/... models?

Its installer's safe per VirScan http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF... also!

Lastly - MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has source verified it safe too http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

---

* AndyMadigan - QUESTION: What's it taste like "EATING YOUR WORDS" after you rammed them down your throat since YOUR FOOT IS IN YOUR MOUTH as well as "washing them down with the bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT"?

APK

P.S.=> Seeing you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) tips your hand & PROVES YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity!

... apk

DOJ Appearance

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DOJ could actually do something about this, as opposed to window dressing, they might just be the most effective and popular federal department of the year. Actually, make that of the decade!

How about Civil Forfeiture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they looking at Civil Forfeiture at all? Fuck fines and penalties, that's pennies.

In 2014, police took in more in Civil Forfeiture than crooks took in robbing and burglarizing. And that's the nationwide number!

Then enjoy your hellhole.

[sethstorm]

If you do not want effective police, expect civilization to disappear with their departure. See Detroit (1967-2013) and Baltimore for examples of politically-correct paradises.

I'll take a well-policed area, especially if it repels BLM thuggery. It's not only safe, but people of all backgrounds can act without fear of political incorrectness.

Re:Then enjoy your hellhole.

[beastofburdon]

The hell-scapes of Detroit and Baltimore are directly caused by police abusing the citizens you racist bastard.